Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
suede-skills-mcp

suede-skills-mcp

by JasonColapietro
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Suede Visibility Grade

suede_visibility_grade
Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate an A-F visibility and CTA grading scaffold for a public page, docs surface, repo page, launch page, or campaign page to guide SEO and conversion improvements.

Instructions

Create a Suede A-F visibility and CTA grading scaffold for a public page, docs surface, repo page, launch page, or campaign page.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "suede_visibility_grade"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoOptional URL to grade.
copyNoOptional pasted page copy.
notesNoOptional context, screenshot notes, or constraints.
pageTypeNoPage or docs type when no URL is available.
primaryActionNoMain action the page should drive.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYes
primaryActionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope of the grading (visibility + CTA, A-F scale) but says nothing about what 'create' means operationally — whether state is persisted or content is simply generated and returned. 'Create' sits in mild tension with readOnlyHint, though it is plausibly just content generation rather than a write.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single well-formed sentence with the core artifact front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it leans terse for a five-input grading tool with several near-duplicate siblings.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, all five parameters are optional and the description never states a minimum input (e.g., at least a URL or copy), nor does it differentiate from the other grading siblings — meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning about which of url, copy, notes, pageType, or primaryAction are needed or how they interact. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the full burden.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('Create') and a specific artifact ('A-F visibility and CTA grading scaffold') along with the surfaces it targets (public page, docs, repo, launch, campaign). It never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as suede_code_grade, suede_copy_check, or suede_live_page_audit, and 'scaffold' is ambiguous about whether it grades the page or produces a reusable grading rubric.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It lists eligible page types but gives no when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. Given three sibling grading/audit tools, an agent has no guidance on which to pick when a page has both copy and code aspects.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools